The Constitution won’t save America- It has lost touch with the nation's twisted soul

Phoenyx said:
Ideally, I think it should only be restricted to those who actively advocate harming people for no good reason (as opposed to stopping the Nazis in World War II, say). Unfortunately, even when it comes to this, it appears that governments and corporations are taking sides- for instance, it's ok to advocate harm to Russians or Palestinians because they're not following the Globalists' agendas, for instance.



I have no problem with -some- restrictions. I particularly like the ability of thread creators in this forum to thread ban people who they don't want to listen to in their own threads. But when it comes to information generally, I'm off the view that the best way to counter faulty arguments is with good ones, not by banning people from presenting said faulty arguments. Things get even worse when only a select few in power get to decide what arguments are allowed and what aren't.



Could you give an example of what you mean here?



Sure. But seeing as how the writers of the constitution have all passed, they won't be making any more revisions. It's up to the current generation of Americans to correct any flaws it has.
Click to expand...


how should people deal with the innate totalitarianism of Keynesian (fake money) fascist totalitarianism?
 
Hermes Thoth said:
how should people deal with the innate totalitarianism of Keynesian (fake money) fascist totalitarianism?
Click to expand...

Very good questions. I think history gives good examples of how populations have dealt with totalitarians. Generally speaking, it's a pretty bloody affair, but one can always hope that totalitarian systems can be removed without said bloodshed. As to fake money, I imagine you're referring to fiat currency, perhaps more specifically making too much of it, leading to runaway inflation. There are many solutions to that problem, from having a more responsible government that doesn't spend most of its money on things that don't help its population (most U.S. military spending comes to mind), to alternative currencies such as cryptocurrencies.
 
Phoenyx said:
I think the most pressing concern here is the U.S. government bullying corporations from taking down information it doesn't want up. As to the problem, I think it's pretty plain- if the U.S. Supreme Court is going to interpret the Constitution as saying it's ok for the U.S. government to bully corporations into taking down content said government doesn't want up, what good is the constitution? In the end, it's just pieces of paper. There's a line from one of Frank Herbert's books that I think is quite apt here:

**
Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?
**
Click to expand...

according to your analysis, the problem is the supreme court.

people are flawed. maybe they will still get it right later on.

nice try, libertarian constitution hater, who has implied that the problem is either the constitution or the people who wont RISE UP.

have faith in the system and stop speaking against both the constitution and the people.

your shit talking everything wont work, nihilist corporatist.
 
Last edited:
Phoenyx said:
Very good questions. I think history gives good examples of how populations have dealt with totalitarians. Generally speaking, it's a pretty bloody affair, but one can always hope that totalitarian systems can be removed without said bloodshed. As to fake money, I imagine you're referring to fiat currency, perhaps more specifically making too much of it, leading to runaway inflation. There are many solutions to that problem, from having a more responsible government that doesn't spend most of its money on things that don't help its population (most U.S. military spending comes to mind), to alternative currencies such as cryptocurrencies.
Click to expand...

such an AI answer. wtf.


lol.
 
Hermes Thoth said:
Phoenyx said:
I think the most pressing concern here is the U.S. government bullying corporations from taking down information it doesn't want up. As to the problem, I think it's pretty plain- if the U.S. Supreme Court is going to interpret the Constitution as saying it's ok for the U.S. government to bully corporations into taking down content said government doesn't want up, what good is the constitution? In the end, it's just pieces of paper. There's a line from one of Frank Herbert's books that I think is quite apt here:

**
Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?
**
Click to expand...

according to your analysis, the problem is the supreme court.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that.
 
Hermes Thoth said:
Phoenyx said:
Very good questions. I think history gives good examples of how populations have dealt with totalitarians. Generally speaking, it's a pretty bloody affair, but one can always hope that totalitarian systems can be removed without said bloodshed. As to fake money, I imagine you're referring to fiat currency, perhaps more specifically making too much of it, leading to runaway inflation. There are many solutions to that problem, from having a more responsible government that doesn't spend most of its money on things that don't help its population (most U.S. military spending comes to mind), to alternative currencies such as cryptocurrencies.
Click to expand...

such an AI answer.
Click to expand...

Are you -trying- to insult me?
 
Phoenyx said:
Lol :-).



I'm wondering if it's the same poster. He changes his name a lot :-p. We generally get along, but once in a while, he starts going rogue on me -.-
Click to expand...

You can see who it is if you look at my recent posts. I went round and round with him a couple times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top